365

submitted 5 months ago by spujb@lemmy.cafe to c/196@lemmy.blahaj.zone

33 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] i_am_hiding@aussie.zone 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

That's funny. I remember him saying the opposite.

Am I mistaken? Just here in response to the question of whether Kamala would make a good president, he says "Look, I wouldn't have picked vice president Trump [Kamala] to be vice president. I think she's not qualified to be president. Let's start there."

Hillary didn't lose because of Trump. She lost because she's Hillary.

You may have a point there, I'll grant you, but I'm still not sure Kamala can come out on top. I'd very much like to be proven wrong, but we might have to wait for the next debate to gauge what direction we're heading in.

[-] boogetyboo@aussie.zone 12 points 5 months ago

His stumbling over the sentence cadence made him accidentally say the opposite. He meant to say that he wouldn't have picked her for VP if she wasn't qualified for president - think about it, that that's a far more normal thing for him to have said and I'm positive what he meant. He just tripped over the words.

[-] themoonisacheese@sh.itjust.works 2 points 5 months ago

I'd like the USA to not elect the fascists, but that's asking america to vote a black woman as president and we know that shit is not happening, sadly.